THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
Unfortunately, despite all of our best efforts, we still face huge challenges in improving public schools. The most recent TIMSS study of students from 41 different countries found that many American students score far behind those in other countries. In Wisconsin, scores in math, science and writing are
[Page: S1516] GPO's PDF
Mr. President, I strongly support the notion that the Federal government must continue to be a partner with States and local educators as we strive to improve public schools. As a nation, it is in all of our best interests to ensure that our children receive the best education possible. It is vital to their future success, and the success of our country.
However, addressing problems in education is going to take more than cosmetic reform. We are going to have to take a fresh look at the structure of Federal education programs. We need to let go of the tired partisan fighting over more spending versus block grants and take a middle ground approach that will truly help our States, school districts--and most importantly, our students.
Our ``Three R's'' bill does just that. It makes raising student achievement for all students--and eliminating the achievement gap between low-income and more affluent students--our top priorities. To accomplish this, our bill centers around three principles.
First, we believe that we must continue to make a stronger investment in education, and that Federal dollars must be targeted to the neediest students. A recent GAO study found that Federal education dollars are significantly more targeted to poor districts than money spent by States. Although Federal funds make up only 6-7 percent of all money spent on education, it is essential that we target those funds where they are needed the most.
Second, we believe that States and local school districts are in the best position to know what their educational needs are. They should be given more flexibility to determine how they will use Federal dollars to meet those needs.
Finally--and I believe this is the key component of our approach--we believe that in exchange for this increased flexibility, there must also be accountability for results. These principles are a pyramid, with accountability being the base that supports the federal government's grant of flexibility and funds.
For too long, we have seen a steady stream of Federal dollars flow to States and school districts--regardless of how well they educated their students. This has to stop. We need to reward schools that do a good job. We need to provide assistance and support to schools that are struggling to do a better job. And we need to stop subsidizing failure. Our highest priority must be educating children--not perpetuating broken systems.
Mr. President, I believe the ``Three R's'' bill is a strong starting point for taking a fresh look at public education. We need to build upon all the progress we've made, and work to address the problems we still face. This bill--by using the concepts of increased funding, targeting, flexibility--and most importantly, accountability--demonstrates how we can work with our State and local partners to make sure every child receives the highest quality education--a chance to live a successful productive life. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as education groups in my State, as Congress debates ESEA in the coming months.
By Mr. MCCAIN:
S. 2255. A bill to amend the Internet Tax Freedom Act to extend the moratorium through calendar year 2006; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
THE INTERNET TAX FREEDOM ACT OF 2000
Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today to extend the moratorium on Internet taxes through 2006. This will ensure that Internet commerce remains free from burdensome, anticonsumer taxation while we discuss a fair and equitable tax structure for our new economy. This bill simply extends the law passed by Congress and signed by the President in October 1998.
The 1998 legislation imposed a moratorium and provided for a commission to report to Congress. While the Commission has not yet reported its recommendations, it is clear from published reports of their deliberations and from interviews with their members that a clear consensus is not imminent. More discussions and more time is necessary to arrive at a fair conclusion. Although I feel strongly that in the end a permanent moratorium is the best policy, which is why I introduced legislation to impose a permanent ban on Internet taxes, I also have become convinced that we need more time to determine how state and local governments will be affected. We need to consider whether the macroeconomic benefits of the new economy will outweigh the potential losses in direct revenues, how to ensure a level playing field for all venues of commerce, and how to simplify the overwhelming morass of tax rules, regulations and paperwork so that opportunities for new or small businesses are not lost in complex and archaic bureaucracy.
The compromises being discussed by the Commission are a good start to the debate, but more time is necessary to pursue these and other possible options. It is becoming increasingly clear that the answer to taxation of the internet must affect taxation of other commerce media, such as catalog sales , as well. We need to reexamine the level of services which the public wants to be provided by government and determine how to provide necessary revenue to accomplish the people's will. We need to ensure that taxation is not simply imposed to increase government bureaucracy.
Recent studies indicate that state and local governments will not suffer during this interim period. A June 1999 report by the well-known and respected auditing and business consulting firm or Ernst & Young concludes that total sales and use taxes not collected by state and local governments from Internet e-commerce transactions in 1998 amounted to only ``one-tenth of one percent of total state and local sales and use tax collections.'' Another May 1999 analysis of Internet commerce transactions through 2003 by Austan Goolsvee and Jonathan Zittrain, published in the National Tax Journal, predicts ``even with a 70 percent rate of growth in retail e-commerce transactions, a revenue loss of less than 2 percent of sales tax revenue.''
There are multiple reasons for this very marginal impact on state and local revenues. First, most of the e-commerce transactions are wither business-to-business transactions, or for services, such as financial services and travel, which are exempt from sales and use taxes in most states. Ernst & Young estimated only 13 percent of the total e-commerce sales transactions were of a type which would be subject to sales and use taxes if conducted in person.
Second, as pointed out by Austan Goolsbee and Jonathan Zittrain, the Internet is a ``trade creator''--that is, many transactions which occur through e-commerce would not take place at all without the internet .
Third, the Internet does not divert sales only from brick and mortar retailers, but also from mail order catalogs. Those sales are also subject to sales and use tax only where a nexus, a physical presence, in the taxing state.
We are currently seeing a continued rise in state and local revenues. Many states are currently debating how to refund money to their citizens, whether to cut sales taxes or income taxes. Thus, this moratorium should not negatively impact their ability to provide services during the interim.
It is important to look at the full picture here. The Internet is filled with web sites of small businesses which are expanding in ways which would never have before been economically feasible. For example, a small store in a small town which has historically had a limited market for its good now has a website that allows it to market and sell to people all over the country--all over the world. It increases its business and needs to hire more employees, and pays taxes on its increased revenues. The states and local governments benefits, not only from the additional taxes paid on the revenues, but in the economic benefits of additional jobs.
The potential burden of complying with tax regulations and the paperwork involved under current law for as many as 7,500 estimated taxing units in this country would ovrwhelm many businesses, especially small businesses. An example in the March 13, 2000 edition of Interactive Week is instructive. ``If you're a raw peanut, five states would require that sales taxes are paid
[Page: S1517] GPO's PDF
While I hope that the debate will conclude with a decision to leave the Internet as a ``tax -free-zone,'' I believe that it is important to continue the discussion and to move all stakeholders toward a consensus. This temporary extension of the moratorium already approved by Congress and the President will allow us to do that. This is a good compromise which will serve as a catalyst for consideration of the broader tax policy issues which need to enter into this discussion to ensure a fair and equitable tax system in this country.
I intend to move this bill through committee expeditiously and look forward to debating it on the Senate floor.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
S. 2255
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. INTERNET TAX MORATORIUM EXTENDED THROUGH 2006.
Section 1101(a) of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 nt) is amended by striking ``3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act--'' and inserting ``on December 31, 2006:'',
By Mr. BIDEN (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL):
S. 2256. A bill to amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide standards and procedures to guide both State and local law enforcement agencies and law enforcement officers during internal investigations, interrogation of law enforcement officers, and administrative disciplinary hearings, to ensure accountability of law enforcement officers, to guarantee the due process rights of law enforcement officers, and to require States to enact law enforcement discipline, accountability, and due process laws; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
THE STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT DISCIPLINE, ACCOUNTABILITY AND DUE PROCESS ACT OF 2000
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today I rise with Senator BIDEN to introduce the State and Local Law Enforcement Discipline, Accountability and Due Process Act of 2000. American families can turn on the news every night and see the reality of the war against crime and drugs. No one understands the dangers of this battle better than the men and women on the front lines. I'm talking about our nation's police officers.
We have entrusted the difficult work of protecting society to police officers. They know the stress and the strain of walking the daily beat, of being caught in the crossfire in a world of gangs and drugs. They do a very difficult job, and with few exceptions, they do it with honor and skill.
We should always remember that the vast majority of police officers work responsibly and risk their lives for all of us. In the words of one officer, `the ultimate sacrifice could occur at any time. * * * [The] gangs and criminals have rewritten the rule book.'
To make matters worse, the pressure of crime and drugs--of gangs and thugs--is multiplied by the fear of unjust disciplinary actions. Our law enforcement officers face intrusive investigations into their professional and personal lives--oftentimes at the behest of some recently arrested criminal looking for a payback.
Unfortunately, many police officers are denied the same basic procedural and due process rights that the rest of us enjoy and take for granted. As a result, our officers live in the fear of: being investigated without notice; being interrogated without an attorney; and, being dismissed without a hearing.
We insist that police officers respect the constitutional rights of the citizens they serve. We insist that they adhere to the letter and spirit of our laws. We insist that they respect due process in their work. It is past time for us to give them the same kind of legal rights that every other citizen has come to enjoy. That is why Senator BIDEN and I have introduced this bill.
This bill strikes an important balance: it makes sure every police officer has basic fundamental procedural rights, while at the same time ensuring that citizens have the opportunity to raise legitimate complaints and concerns about police officer accountability.
For example, the bill guarantees due process rights to every police officer subject to investigation for noncriminal disciplinary action. Some of these rights include: the right to be informed of the administrative charges prior to being questioned; the right to be advised of the results of an investigation; the right to a hearing and an opportunity to respond; and the right to be represented by counsel or other representative.
At the same time the bill ensures that legitimate citizen complaints against police officers will be actively investigated, and that citizens will be informed of the progress and outcome of those investigations.
Finally, I must conclude by explaining that this bill is a product of years of input from the men and women who have experienced the daily pressures of police service, and continue to endure them. This legislation has benefitted from the thoughtful ideas and past support of many law enforcement groups, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers.
In particular, I am grateful to the contribution made by the Fraternal Order of Police. Over the past 8 years, I have worked closely with the Kentucky FOP to develop and promote this legislation.
The time has come to protect those who protect us. We must give our law enforcement officers the basic and fundamental rights that they desperately need and richly deserve.
By Mr. TORRICELLI:
S. 2259. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to divide New Jersey into two judicial districts; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
CREATING A NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will help bring more criminals to justice and create a better federal judicial system in New Jersey. This legislation will divide the federal District of New Jersey into the Southern and Northern Districts of New Jersey which will enable the federal courts and federal agencies to better serve the approximately 8 million residents of the state. It will also bring much needed federal law enforcement resources to the state, particularly southern New Jersey.
Under the bill, the proposed Southern District of New Jersey would include 8 of the 21 counties in New Jersey and the Northern District of New Jersey would include the remaining 13. The federal courthouses would be located in Camden and Trenton for the Southern District and in Newark for the Northern District. All federal cases arising in the eight-county Southern District would be heard in the federal court in Camden or Trenton and cases from the 13-county Northern District would be heard in Newark. The bill would also result in the creation of several new federal positions for the Southern District including a Clerk of the Court, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Marshal, and a Federal Public Defender, among others.
By creating a new Southern District of New Jersey, more federal crime-fighting resources will be brought to a region which crime statistics reveal is besieged by violent crime. In 1998, southern New Jersey accounted for 25 percent of the state's urban murders, 32 percent of the state's murder arrests and 33 percent of the state's arrests for violent crimes. This initiative will also ensure that crime-fighting decisions are made locally instead of by officials who are based elsewhere in the state and that law enforcement officials in the region will get the resources needed to prosecute crimes effectively and expeditiously.
The creation of two districts will also provide relief from the crush of cases that have crowded the dockets of the federal courts in southern New Jersey and caused a severe backlog in the system. In 1998 alone, 281 federal criminal
[Page: S1518] GPO's PDF
Finally, the creation of a new Northern and Southern Districts of New Jersey is warranted based on the sheer size of the state. The current District of New Jersey is the third most populous federal judicial district in the nation. Of the 25 states that have a single federal judicial district, New Jersey has the largest population and more than a dozen states with smaller populations have multiple judicial districts. In fact, with more than 2 million residents in the southern counties, the population of the proposed Southern District of New Jersey would exceed that of almost half of the current judicial districts and the proposed Northern District would rank even higher.
This initiative enjoys broad bipartisan political support in New Jersey, and a similar bill has been introduced and cosponsored in the U.S. House of Representatives by the entire southern New Jersey Congressional delegation. The measure also has strong support in the southern counties and is backed by all eight southern county bar associations, the South Jersey Police Chief's Association, the Chamber of Commerce of Southern New Jersey and various former county prosecutors and former federal law enforcement officials.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents